In addition, no one seems to understand that we already have a drug enforcement and distribution infrastructure that works for thousands of drugs.
That existing infrastructure should be used for marijuana, if it is in fact useful for medical purposes.

Perhaps only the drugs within marijuana that have medical benefits should be dispensed as other prescription drugs are today.

Colin C. Case, Highlands Ranch

This letter was published in the Jan. 25 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

Somehow, medical information, practice, and advice, as found in, and taken from, the Wall Street Journal are a great deal less convincing concerning the “uselessness” of marijuana, than all the articles available in MEDICAL JOURNALS concerning the benefits of marijuana in treatment of numerous conditions that the regular plethora of chemicals available sometimes serve only to aggravate, or produce worse side effects than that the actual symptoms of the illness/disease itself.But then again, those who would always prefer to find “wrongdoing” of some kind – any kind they can find fault with – in whatever it be they themselves neither understand nor care to learn about, aren't usually concerned with the validity, or authenticity, of their sources of/for criticism – or even whether or not they have any actual relationship to the subject for that matter.Just another example of how knowing little or nothing about anything – makes some people feel they are experts in everything.

johnconnore

good answer old grouch, you find bad info on anything if you sniff around enough sources that display strong bias.

bellle

Valid points made by Mr. Case.We shouldn't rush into enabling everyone to get high on drugs.What benefit would that be to society??And what dangers would it add?Deeper and more careful thinking is needed about this matter.

illegalhater

Belle , EVERYONE is on some kind of drug nowadays. EVERYONE.. marijuana is safer then half the narcotics in your medicine chest , I guarentee it. My suggestion is to stay out of other peoples lives and decision making for themselves , and focus on your own.

bellle

illegalhater…your argument doesn't justify taking even more drugs.And Society must continue to restrain the behavior of its citizens. Right?

illegalhater

Until you can give me a valid reason why we must 'restrain' citizens on using marijuana if the CHOOSE to do it, then my answer is NO.. can you offer valid reasons why ADULTS should not be allowed to use this plant ?

bleeth

We're not talking about taking more drugs Bellle, we're talking about reducing the use of synthetic drugs that destroy our livers and rip up our digestive tracts and replacing it with a safer alternative. If you would actually read what people are posting you might actually learn something.

theoldgrouch

Wrong! As usual!

rfritts

Doctors have been giving drugs for ever. If we would all read the paper that comes with your presciption drugs you wouldn't take them.

AceKing

Lawrence, your statement doesn't justify continuing prohibition, especially if the behavior of people who enjoy smoking it causes Society, as well as you, no harm.

peterpi

I don't see why the pro-pot people are so upset. All Colin Case pointed out was that marijuana has potentially harmful side effects as well as benefits. Why is that such a bad thing to say? Name one drug that has NO side effects — you can't. He's right that marijuana affects different people in different ways. That's not a revolutionary statement, either. I, for one, tried pot decades ago, and can attest to increased pulse rate, paranoid feelings, and other harmful effects.1) I have no problem with people smoking pot, but its advocates should quit acting like its a harmless, all good panacea.2) Why don't pot advocates try to legalize it, instead of wink-wink “prescribing” pot for every ailment known to humanity, from corns to cancer, from headaches to HIV disease. I bet pot cures the heart-break of psoriasis, right?3) Name one other medicine that is smoked. I'm not talking nebulizers, I'm not not infusers. I'm talking smoked. Smoking tobacco leaves and inhaling the combustion gases thereof causes the lung cancer and emphysema of cigarettes. Why shouldn't smoking marijuana leaves be any different?

theoldgrouch

Perhaps you should peruse NORML.com, where complete legalization is the ultimate goal.What is most obvious here is the tactic being used by the “minders of everyone else's business and keepers of everyone else's morals”, which is, simply, to attack the current level of legalization as if it were a disaster in and of itself. The abysmal ignorance displayed in the presentation of this is beyond comment; but, it is about par for the course.Reminds me of the 2008 elections, which the Republicans LOST so overwhelmingly; but kept right on insisting that everyone else was . . . “wrong”, somehow, someway, in chosing to vote FOR change. The people of the State of Colorado voted what we have now; and the ANTI-claque just can't begin to understand how, or why; since THEY are always “right” in everything – or “moral”, same difference so far as that goes. Just like the 4 to 1 defeat of the Amendment to create “personhood” in a fertilized egg. There is a definition for the time, effort, and energy wasted in doing the SAME THING, over and over, again and again, in hopes of different results. But that's THEIR world; and they expect all the rest of us to want to join THEM, rather than EVER having to make the slightest effort to get in touch with REALITY themselves.

bleeth

I'd like to shed a little light here as well. The Wall Street Journal is no more reliable pointing out the potential side effects of MMJ then the Denver Post. Also If you have no problem with people smoking pot “wink-wink” then why do you care how or why it's used?I see the Grouch already posted the NORML info. for you. A very good resource for any questions concerning MMJ. Also, go to Amazon and check out “Understanding Marijuana” by Mitch Earlywine.I would also hazard a guess that you are not an MMJ card holder or you would not make such ignorant comments about who uses MMJ. Who are you to question the validity of my card or discount my pain? I don't ingest it by smoking it either and finally the leaves are not smoked. Please educate yourself and get back to us with more of your brilliant insight.

holyreality

The social contract has nothing to do with “restraining” on participants behavior, it is the individual's SELF restraint that completes the contract. Personal behavior control is how society began, cooperation leads to survival, and survival leads to culture.Religious types who wish to control the behavior of others through government is a desire for a well intentioned tyranny. And Larry, we all know where good intentions lead now don't we?Reefer madness was as large a threat in America in the 1930's as the modern day Islamic bogey man today. Legislation has been bought and paid for by the corporate lobbyists for over a century now, the press lead the people into demanding new laws that are not in the voter's interests, while the fat cats laugh and the police state grows.The only reason cannabis is still outlawed is for the petty power fiefdoms every police chief has in the nation. Cannabis helps many people through their days, with no reefer madness side effects. Why not just try it Larry? What harm would it do?

theoldgrouch

I see your Grandmother never treated you with the old fashioned turpentine and pine tar approach for bad bronchial coughs. And I would make the educated guess that you never had cause to use the old bronchial/asthma cigarettes – consisting principally of canabis, with some other herbs added for “flavor” – either. The first “smoking” was highly unpleasant. But, it worked. And as for the second, well, it worked well too. Or it certainly did for my Uncle, who came out here from Chicago, and had severe bronchial coughs almost every winter.NO form of Prohibition has ever worked, well or otherwise.

commonsense guy

HmmmSo if pot is so good why dont the pro pot crowd go for it in pharmacist? after all their argument is that it should be a drug prescribed right? Why do they need their own dispensaries? seems a little odd to me, Why can't i open up a shop for morphine then? As for your claim about 2008, how we where wrong about that change – hows it working out for ya? you enjoying the high unemployment? how about that growing defect(yes i know bush grew it, but not nearly at the rate obama is) oh what about the attack on your personal rights?You also talk about the right to choose and how government should stay out of people lives? I agree hole heartily- but i have to question if you really believe that as you seem to support the health care overhaul which would take away your right to choose what health insurance to have if any at all? Or what about the Government telling me what kind of car I can drive?(you know the taxes on larger trucks proposed by the Dems) or on how I light my house?(the tax on indecent light bulbs?) seems like you only like govt to stay out of our lives when it benefits you and your law breaking ilk.

bleeth

No, that is not our argument. If you would take the time to actually do the research or perhaps read some of these posts you would know that it can't be dispensed in pharmacies and doctors don't prescribe it, they recommend it. The commonsense title seems a bit inappropriate for you.Your rant referring to 2008 is quite idiotic considering you didn't understand the comparison. You are off the subject with most of your diatribe. Good luck with your morphine shop.

thinkingOfJobs

No jobs, no prospects. Might as well smoke dope, for whatever reason.

theoldgrouch

Well, as a matter of simple fact, canabis/marijuana was available as an over-the-counter remedy in pharmacies for many years. It was the main igredient in several house brands of bronchial/asthma cigarettes, which I used to pick up for my Uncle in the winter, at the old Owl Drug, when he had one of his severe bronchial coughing spells. So too, for that matter, were several other pharmaceuticals, such as camphorated tincture of opium – laudunum/paregoric – and codeine cough syrup. The latter two – and some others – were signed for in the “Exempt Narcotic” register.Now, there is quite a difference between having to pay a tax on something and facing such penalties as prison terms for buying things. When you buy a truck, for instance, as you point out, you pay tax for its weight, and for the use of it on the roads and bridges. BUT! You still can buy the truck of your CHOICE. And the same goes for your – did you mean “incandescent” – light bulbs, etc. Taxes are a part of Government.However, WHY should someone face 10 to 15 years in prison for wanting to smoke, or otherwise partake of, a plant? Or of what used to be available over the counter, or by way of signing a book? That kind of Government in life prohibits CHOICE, unreasonably. And that IS the kind of intrusion into people's lives that Government SHOULD NOT make.And, as for being part of a “law breaking ilk”, perhaps you might tell us just why YOU find opposing laws that ACTUALLY INVADE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, and PROHIBIT CHOICE, constitute “law breaking”. What makes that kind of law sacrosanct? Perhaps you might try to acquire some common sense somewhere.

commonsense guy

I am aware that it can't be put in pharmacies, in fact i'm saying why doesn't your group(im assuming your pro pot from your post) go for that to further legitimize it? Why not make it a true legal drug rather then all this under the counter stuff? Why not make it traceable, and in my opinion safer as it would be regulated further?

commonsense guy

So when a senator states that she wants to tax a truck so much noone can afford it its not limiting choice?By saying that I need to have health insurance or i pay a fine and or jail time that's not a limit of choice?By saying I can only buy health insurance from my home state that is not a limit of choice?These are all things that the Democrats have said recently with in the last year. As for why I believe your breaking a law that is a law, and has been held up by the supreme court? Because well your breaking a law…. Now if you believe you have the votes to over turn a law, by all means go for it. I personally don't care what you smoke, but I do believe in the law of the land, and if you are caught breaking it you should face the penalty written. Remember the folks voted in by the public wrote that law. Now if you wanted to go ahead and break that law, it is your choice to do so, but don't be surprised or upset if yo uget caught and are forced to face the penalty

bleeth

Pharmacies have more invested in keeping marijuana illegal and generally don't handle herbs and that is exactly what marijuana is, an herbal remedy. There is nothing unsafe about the way it's being handled now. What ultimately needs to happen is it simply needs to be legalized for recreational use.I don't consider any of the synthetic drugs sold on the market to be legitimate. They have not worked for me and caused me more problems than I can list. I'm not saying Marijuana is the “end all be all” solution for everything. I do happen to know in most cases it works for me and many other people irregardless of rather it's being used recreationally or medically. If we are to live in a free country we must be able to choose what works best for us. The prohibition on this plant has not worked and needs to end.

theoldgrouch

Interesting approach. If someone is in favor of a woman's rights to Choice, that makes that person a “baby killer” – according to you? And, if someone is in favor of complete legalization of marijuana, and other drugs as well, that makes that person a “law breaker” – as a user – according to you?And, someone says – as part of a political campaign, or in support of a bill – that he, or she, proposes a high tax – one which you can't afford; so, again according to you, that is limiting choice for everyone else?No wonder you right-wingnuts are so completely out of touch with reality, and so far out of the mainstream of American life.Well, just for information, I don't happen to smoke, even tobacco any more. And, I've never even killed an animal, much less a baby. But, that's not important anyway.And, again just for information, most, if not all, the rules and regulations governing drugs WERE NOT written by “the folks voted in by the public”. Rather, they come from such as FDA, DEA, and APPOINTED “Czars”, whose positions were political awards by Adminsitration – Presidential appointment – and NOT by any form of “popular vote”.Back when I was a boy, marijuana was an “over the counter” item. Canabis (marijuana) – and a couple of other herbs for “flavor”, and to lessen the smell – was the principal ingredient of the box of bronchial-asthma cigarettes I would buy for my Uncle, at the old Owl Drug, when he had one of his very bad winter coughs. The cost of a regular pack in those days was 5 cents for Wings, with the “brands”, such as Camels, Lucky Strikes, Chesterfield, etc., selling for a dime (10 cents). Everyone knew the box was “medicine”, since it cost from 75 Cents to $1.00 for 20, making it something not usually available for just plain smoking.I also used to sign for – at Owl Drug – the exempt narcotics, paregoric (camphorated tincture opium), codeine cough syrup, and such others as were used in those days, regularly by people who didn't rely on going to the Doctor for every sniffle. Back then, when I was around 10 to 16 years old, folks had experienced the disaster of Prohibition – of alcohol – and were sick and tired of the kind of regulations that demonized physical objects, plants, etc., in favor of superstitious stupidity. And, so far as I be concerned, our citizens today have just as much – if not more(!) good sense today..

Anonymous

Please….let’s not use name calling to try to win a discussion.

Anonymous

Please………..take your meds!!!!!!!!!

bellle

AceKing ……that argument is weak.But it is always used by every effort to lower morality. Why??

bellle

HolyReality….see reply to AceKing

theoldgrouch

Simply because most sensible and intelligent people in this country have no interest in YOUR fantasies about what “morality” is; and therefore see absolutely no sense whatsoever to an argument about “lowering” something that is nothing more than infantile superstition, and attempt to placate a figment of imagination kind of bogyman under the bed that YOU insist is “deity”.The only WEAK argument around is the one YOU keep presenting; i.e., that YOU even know what “morality” is; and that society is, somehow, bound to accept YOUR notions on the subject.

theoldgrouch

Do take the time to go to NORML.com, and read about the current efforts to completely legalize marijuana. All it takes is a click of the mouse. And I think you will find adequate answers to all your questions.

bellle

Grouch …please don't go back to using personal attacks and intimidation…..hoping that approach somehow will prove that your veiwpoint is valid.Society sets moral standards. And that's as it should be.I hope you don't have difficulty accepting that fact.

bleeth

Bellle, the only difficulty all of us have a hard time accepting is your complete and utter disregard of reality.

bellle

Bleeth…..was that reply intended to provide justification for your viewpoint???Or was it an admission that you lack any justification?Please….hopefully you can do better.

theoldgrouch

After alll this time, you still think other people should have to “justify” their viewpoints, while YOUR viewpoint is, somehow, sacrosanct and not open to criticism or opposition?Well, that's just too bad. When you're wrong, you're wrong. And, your notion that, somehow, you are – or speak for – “society” – is nothing more than your own fantasy.You have presented your viewpoint. Many others here have presented theirs. If you feel that disagreement with your notions is an “attack”, that's YOUR problem.And, most of us are very tired of the kind of sanctiphonious piosity you keep displaying.As to your viewpoint concerning “society setting moral standards”: That's only partially true. And, it begs the question concerning assertions as to what “moral standards” are in the first place. At times, society – either by way of participating in a legislative process – such as initiative – or action by representatives, takes upon itself the onus of establishing rules and regulations that actually have nothing to do with either the “common good” or the “general welfare” as these terms apply to Statute and Law. These are generally known as “special interest laws”; and they serve only the purpose of pleasing, or placating – or even enriching – a PART of society.Sometimes, these special interests claim that their particular set of rules and regulations are “moral” in character. This fiction often deludes people into voting for something that is nothing more than an imaginary notion of “superiority” in some way on the part of whatever special interest seeks to establish rule and regulation. The worst offenders in this are those for whom their fantasies are expressed as “religion/religious” – and demanded to be binding on everyone else because the fantasy either “comes from deity”, or is otherwise associated with a particular figment of imagination worshiped by the special interest as “god”.If this be the position from which YOU are expressing your viewpoint, that is a Constitutionally guaranteed right in this Nation. It is called “freedom of religion”. YOU can believe anything you want to believe. And, short of violating major Statutes – and engaging in criminal action, such as inciting to riot, committing crimes against persons, etc. – your expression of your beliefs is also guaranteed under the area of “freedom of speech”.Conversely, the equal Constitutional guarantee of freedom FROM religion applies to those who do not choose to “believe as I (you) believe” – which you, yourself, tell us is the sole and only reason you write and post here; i.e., to get others to do just that, without evidence, proof, or even logical and sensible arguments – just as the equal right of freedom of speech is also guaranteed to them as well.That's all the “justification” – or other “approval” – anyone needs. You take advantage of it all the time. And there is an old saying: “If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”.

bleeth

Bellle, I'm going to take the “moral” high ground here and say YES!!!!!!!! I am justified in my viewpoint. Why do you refuse to answer any of the questions I have ask you on any of these posts?Your rants concluding (only in your head) that any of us here lack any justification in our beliefs are not only insulting but grow boring with each passing day.You obviously need to read those little white papers that come with all your prescription meds. I think you are suffering from some of the side effects associated with your Craperol and Delusionil. Hmmmm……the more I think about it, perhaps you are not taking enough of them.

bellle

Bleeth…what you are forgetting is that you need to convince the majority of the citizens of Colorado that it wouldl be 'beneficial' to the state to allow an increase of people getting high on marijuana.Sorry…..but that proposal doesn't have any support.

bellle

Grouch….you are very intelligent in your arguments. But you are trying to take us on a confusing road of Postmodernism.And most of us don't buy into that philosophy (and shouldn't).

Anonymous

And……………just what philosophy do you believe in Bellle?

Anonymous

To begin with, Bell, you don’t even know what you’re talking about. Most of the sensible and intelligent people on this blog have never heard of whatever this so-called “Postmodernism” you fantasize might be.

There is nothing “pre-modern”, “modern”, “postmodern” – or any other form of assinine label for something that exists only in your own over-fertilized imagination – in simply stating that NO ONE, on this blog, or anywhere else, needs to “justify” to YOU, or seek to have YOUR “approval – or that of anyone elsea posting – an opinion, or a point of view. That’s one of the stupidest – and most arrogantly egotistical – pieces of nonsense you’ve come up with in a long time.. And you’ve come up with some doozies over the past months.

You claim to know all about “morality”. And, that’s your opinion.

I don’t think you know the difference between your anal orfice and an excavation in terrafirma.

And I’d give long odds that a whole lot more people agree with my opinion than with yours.

commonsense guy

*cough cough*
Been around sense the late 70’s maybe you where to high to realize?

But then again i find it funny how your going after Belle when you in fact do the exact same thing?
I hope I don’t turn as negative as you when I age, and that my faith in America doesn’t drop. But I can understand why it has with you, after all you did live through the Carter years and are now seeing it reenacted with Obama

Anonymous

And what does your last sentence have to do with anything in the real world today?Yes, I was around in th ’70s, the time of the unindicted criminal co-conspirator in the White House, and the felonious tax cheat in Blair House. What is it I’m not supposed to realize? Or do you just string words together without meaning all the time for fun?And, what does Stanford’s “credibility” have to do with anything? As I said earlier: Go read Plato’s Discourses if you think that “postmodernism” is such a new and unique set of ideas. Who knows? You might even learn about Socrates and his taking the hemlock because he challenged the silly notions of “absolutes” in cultural, societal, political, and other human affairs?Present something positive yourself, before you criticize others for being “negative”.

theoldgrouch

He doesn't answer questions simply because he can't. For a number of reasons. The first of which is, simply, he knows very little or nothing about the TOPIC – ANY topic – to begin with.This, however is somewhat secondary to the major problem. Larry told us himself – back a while ago – that he DOES NOT write here to engage in discussion, or to present facts, or otherwise provide matter for exchange of ideas or thoughts. Rather, Larry writes for the sole and only purpose of getting others to “believe as I believe”.Thus, when Larry propounds something, he is, in fact, telling you what you are “supposed to believe”. And, his belief system is such that it cannot even begin to allow questions, since all you are supposed to do is lay down, roll over with your paws in the air, and gleefully and gratefully swallow Larry's belief(s), whole. To even begin to ask questions about what Larry presents – or, worse yet, to disagree with it, oppose it, or otherwise critique it – is an “ATTACK”; since, for Larry, getting you to “believe as I (he) believe” means YOUR complete acceptance of whatever Larry has posted, without hesitation or reservation.Thus, for Larry, anything that even dares to seem to conflict with Larry must be “justified”, just as every bit of evidence, citation of source, quotation of other side, etc., is open to Larry's constant questioning of, “How can you prove it's true?”, which is his sole and only reply to anything and everything from outside his own fantasies/beliefs. And, of course, anything that even dares to seem to conflict with Larry CAN'T BE – in Larry's fantasy – “justified” at all. Which makes for a very tiresome, and tiring, circular waste of time all round. In the past, he's told me that some 2000 years of Church history, Witness, Confession, Teaching, Writing, etc., etc., is all, “not true”. And, when I suggested he read the Acts of the Councils – transcriptions made by the Secretaries in attendance – he informed me that these ACTUAL PARTICIPANTS “hadn't done enough research”, because they didn't tell the world that Larry's fabulous nonsense about the Bible was “true”.Since for Larry, only HIS beliefs can be – and are – “Truth” – indeed his “belief” determines what is “True”, apriori – for Larry, there is no such thing as “questions”, when Larry posts, or speaks. Thus, his constant reference to “winning arguments”, when the material is, basically, the presentation of someone else's opinion/viewpoint, COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED, in and of itself, both by the nature of the blog and by the simple matter of freedom of speech. There is NO ARGUMENT, in reality. But, for Larry – again as with “attack” – he invents that response as he goes along.The blog monitors will most probably remove this; but it does need to be said: Larry is a religious crank, who expects everyone else to want to live in his particular fantasy world, worshiping the figment of his imagination he insists is “god”. And, he has told us, himself, that that, in the end, is his “mission”, here on the blog.

bleeth

Why don't you answer my questions instead of posting the same statement over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again?

bleeth

Whew! I see you have been dealing with his hallucinations for quite a while. Thanks for the explanation as to why I can't seem to get anywhere with this guy.

theoldgrouch

What's with this “win a discussion” bit with you? There's no contest in expressing an opinion, or viewpoint, that doesn't happen to agree with your over-fertilized imagination. You flatter yourself too much, if you think anyone takes you seriously enough to even attempt discussion with you. Go learn basic logic, before you claim to be able to “discuss” anything.

commonsense guy

'm glad it works for you. I do however live by the thought that whats illegal is illegal. I have no issue with those who want to make it legal. or to make it like synthetic drugs and require a prescription. I in fact would like to see that, as there are to many “recreational users” that are getting these “recommendations” to get it. But until that status is reached, the law needs to be enforced. That is why its the joke it is now. By having the President saying that laws should not be enforced is laughable, and also a disgrace.

commonsense guy

1) someone pro choice is not a law breaker – unless you can show me that law. nor is someone in favor of leglising pot. But now if they are smoking pot while it is against the law, then yes they are breaking the law. Much like if someone wants to race nascar to go 150mph, they are not a law breaker, but if they decided to go 150 on the high way they are – pretty simple huh?2) I'm not saying that someone proposing a tax is limiting choice, but when they say they want to tax it out of reach of Americans, then yes they want to limit choice. Just like if i say, i want to tax any house you want to buy so you can not afford it – i am trying to limit your choice of housing am i not?3) who voted for the man who is putting all these “czars” in place? so yes in a round about way you(the American people who voted for the disgrace) voted for the rules they make.

theoldgrouch

Is that kind of thoughtless simplicism supposed to be “modernism”, or “pre-modernism”, since you seem to think – along with Tinkling Bell – that laws are, somehow, sacrosanct, and that they come into being by some kind of “divine fiat”, or some other such nonsense.; along with the nonsensical notion that opposition to that kind of imbecility is “postmodernism”. That's a lot more laughable, and disgraceful, that someone pointing out that enforcement of BAD LAWS does more harm than good to society as a whole.

bleeth

Illegal? Really? Not in the state of Colorado and not according to the State Constitution. Also, for your information there is a synthetic drug under the name of Marinol that does not work for me and most of the people that have tried it. Synthetic drugs in many cases are inferior alternatives to the real thing. Why do you want to replace something in it's natural state for something synthetic that will destroy your liver? Perhaps our President along with the majority of the citizens of the United States feels that the Feds view on this plant are completely outdated and discriminatory.It's funny how some of you think that the Federal Government shouldn't be meddling in our lives when it comes to health care and greedy CEOs, but then you turn right around in support of the Feds wanting to control a harmless plant. To me that doesn't show any common sense.

bleeth

Illegal? Really? Not in the state of Colorado and not according to the State Constitution. Also, for your information there is a synthetic drug under the name of Marinol that does not work for me and most of the people that have tried it. Synthetic drugs in many cases are inferior alternatives to the real thing. Why do you want to replace something in it's natural state for something synthetic that will destroy your liver? Perhaps our President along with the majority of the citizens of the United States feels that the Feds view on this plant are completely outdated and discriminatory.It's funny how some of you think that the Federal Government shouldn't be meddling in our lives when it comes to health care and greedy CEOs, but then you turn right around in support of the Feds wanting to control a harmless plant. To me that doesn't show any common sense.

Anonymous

Bellle……see reply from………well……just about all of us.

Lena Butler

Whether for medicinal purposes or not, marijuana has serious side effects.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.